This is exactly why I am most disappointed, Obama promised great things and has not aimed for anything great since he took office. He has failed to deliver for the gay community, the environment, against our corrupt financial system, etc. and it seems as though he isn't even trying to make a difference in any of it. He seems to mave become just another politician. Thought change was at least starting but this is just lip-service to change.

Maybe you have things mixed up.

The stimulus will reduce carbon emissions, since decreased economic activity uses less energy.

The Cap'n trade targets industries who are not politically connected.

Doctors will move to cosmetic practice because of low fee schedules from the public system (this is actually happening in Canada).

For non patients it will be better.

Derek

1) the rationale for the stimulus package was billed and sold as being ONLY for stimulus -- the fact that the part which is ostensibly stimulus is hardly one-third of the bill only belies how the opportunity to spend money in a crisis (repeat Rahm Emanuel's mantra), and hoists you on your own petard;

2) 'Cap and Tax' simply provides more opportunities for political favoritism -- creating arbitrary credits to be awarded to pet projects while getting others to pay for the favors. Meanwhile the energy expense baseline of the entire economy goes up. Waxman-Markey are gushing about how historic this bill is. That it is -- it puts Smoot-Hawley in second place as potentially the most misguided economic legislation of the last 100 years;

3) You quote Burl Ives re the donut and the hole. You should study the rest of the verse:

It's written on the rainbow, in letters made of gold
written on the rainbow, there's wisdom to behold
As you go through life make this your goal -- watch the donut not the hole

Arnold Kling's observations are quite wise, actually. We had thousands and thousands of pages of regulation oversight covering Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Regulation and oversight is necessary, of course -- why not try doing a better job with the rules which we have ?

4) You call Mr Kling glib, but wrong, and claim that he likes the clarity obtained by absolutes and gives up on "truth" which can be a lot less crisp and clear. This is a staggering statement when you think about it. If there is one thing about "truth", it is that is indeed and in fact crisp and clear. What is not crisp and clear are the attempts to "spin" truth to bend it to serve a particular objective or agenda.

"None of the things that are important to the patient will change", you say. Riddle me this, spiderman: we are ALL patients, yes ? If none of the things which are important to ALL of us do not change, then surely there will be no change. But since we are all included in the category of "patients", you would therefore be attempting to speak for ALL of us when you say what is important to ALL of us. And yet you can not make such a statement as a single individual, can you ? Now THAT is Truth.

Simple political double speak. "If you are happy with your insurance you can keep it." -- Unfortunately the ObamaScare health care reform he will make sure you are not happy with your insurance, or more likely your insurance will leave you.

The messiah's remarks the other day... "Maybe you shouldn't have that surgery (not saying what surgery).. just take a pain pill." -- So that is straight forward; No more hip replacements, or knee replacements... take a pain pill and be happy you greedy bastard. Or forget that cancer surgery... take a pain pill until you just die, and stop costing the government so much money trying to live longer.

Or his remarks: 'Private insurance will have the same rules the public plan would have'... Yeah except for profit motive, and the ability to tax and print money. And oh yeah you can't sue the government.

1. The HMOs are riddled with layers of bureaucracy -- one layer to refiuse care -- next layer to refuse care and single out troublemakers, i.e. those who won't take no for an answer -- next layer to try and bamboozle the persistent claimants with rules (if your wife had ordered an ambulette instead of an ambulance when you fell and broke both legs you would've been covered under our plan). As a kid entering the industry, if you don't hit your annual target of care refusal to guarantee XX amount of profit, you don't move up or get your bonus.

2, The HMOs are there to make money. That's why we have ball teams and stadiums owned by insurance companies, built on the backs of dead Americans.

3. The HMOs have helped to destroy the competitiveness of Detroit, etc. If we were all covered by a public option, we would have a different set of problems, but fewer people would die, we'd have a healthier nation, and a competitive manufacturing base, and labor unions and management wouldn't have to fight over medical costs. Also, it would cost us half as much as it costs us now.

4. Different set of problems: Doctors would make $200,000 a year instead of $500,000. The HMOs would shrink, so where would all their bureaucrats go? Bureaucrats would stop telling doctors how to treat their parents, which means their patients would get sicker, right?

5. HMOs would have to change their monopolistic business model and get smarter. Alongside the cops, we have security firms. Alongside the Army, we have Blackwater. Along the post office, we have Fedex. Why make an exception with our health? There will still be a place for HMOs, but with their monopoly gone, they'd actually have to provide a competitive benefit like Blackwater and Fedex do. At present they are a socialist monopoly.

6. The range of excuses and noises about how government can't do anything right is getting stale. Ever worked for an HMO? Ever tried to get an operation covered? Ever tried to negotiate a contract with an HMO on behalf of the teachers in your district, or the workers in your plant? If you haven't, shut the heck up.

As Obama said in his infomercial, "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller."

Adam's comments demonstrate Professor Kling's point 4. Obama and his people want to cut unnecessary care, because they believe that that's what's making the system unsustainable. But he gives every indication that things won't change, and that if anything there will be more care.

Indeed, they may be right (and I know that Professor Kling thinks so), but Obama certainly hasn't convinced people of that. He didn't want to make the case before the election, and he probably doesn't want to make the case explicitly now, because it would be unpopular. And so we have people like Adam who think that Obama's plan does exactly the opposite of what it does.

Many of the bad policies go back to the New Deal and they are certainly creating many that are even worse. The new reality is a heavily politicized, and heavily centralized, economy. Soon, we will all be answering to Gosplan.

We will always have the occasional real estate bubble, but why did the last one grow so enormous that it threatened the entire world economy when it burst? The answer is found government policies that reach back to the New Deal but were made malignant by the Democrats during the Clinton Administration. "Affordable Housing" was a political catch phrase for enriching Real Estate Speculators who were the Cronies of powerful Politicians, most (but by no means all) of them Democrats and many of them in positions of even more power today (see Emanuel, Rahm).

Since their focus is on their own power -- and on acquiring more power -- they view these policies as successful. They know how to inflate political and economic bubbles and that is what they are doing by the dozens. They are creating Powerful Cartels (controlled from Washington) in Health Care, Finance, Transportation and Energy (and that's just in the first few months). They flatter themselves that they are geniuses and since "they" include much of the press, they flatter each other as well. So I do not hope for them to change: their minds are set in concrete. Certainly going full speed ahead with policies that will make labor much more costly -- and doing business and manufacturing in America more expensive -- when we have 10 percent unemployment shows that (as well as a callous disregard for those losing their jobs). Ten people losing their jobs, when they can blame it on Bush, is OK, as long as the one person getting a job gives them the credit. Unemployment, so tragic under Republicans, is not so bad under these Democrats: hey Buddy, look at it this way: you get to spend more time with your family. Stop to smell the roses!

They are not skilled at fixing problems. They are skilled at fixing blame -- and that skill has been put on full display (and remember, "they" include much of the press).

1. Ok, I'll take your first pitch as a called strike. I too have concerns that health-care pre-payment plans (which is what 'healthcare insurance' actually is -- it is not 'insurance' per se ) have some intrinsic opportunities to make more money from an income stream of monthly premiums by minimizing expenses of healthcare payouts. But, you speak of layers of bureaucracy in HMOs, in order to advocate that the federal government would somehow be an improvement ? Hmmmm, I don't think that is wise. This 'strike' was not a fast ball, more like just trying to pull a fast one. What you refer to is a problem with the current healthcare system pin-ball machine, and in no way an argument that the solution is for the government to take over the controls of the flippers.

2. Foul ball. You already used that pitch, and I saw it coming. If the issue is how much money an HMO makes being the middle-man between premiums and disbursements, fine. But would you suggest that the HMOs LOSE money ? Clearly, a going concern needs to be solvent in order to stay in operation. The federal government should also be solvent and not run at an ongoing deficit and loss were it to be in the position of being the administrator. As for the 'back of dead Americans' bit, no need to play the holocaust card for effect.

3. Ball, outside. Free lunch panacea syndrome -- you expected a strike even if throw a ball ? We would have a more competitive manufacturing base if the government paid for health care and labor and management would not fight over medical costs ? So just where did that cost go, and who is paying for it? Did a munificent benefactor wave a wand and make it go away ? No, it would come via universally increased costs on all taxpayers, and the chances that the total efficiency administered collectively by the government would be better and more productive than if done by actual parties to the cost and benefit trade-offs, we would actually be less healthier economically and less competitive -- just more subsidized. But, you say it would cost half as much as it costs now ? Whoa.... have you been taking steroids ?

4. Wild pitch, have no idea of where you are going here. I thought you just said we would all get healthier and not die. Bureaucrats would stop telling doctors how to treat their patients under a public plan ?? Hey come on, this is baseball, not fantasy football.

5. I got a base hit -- you tried to throw me a change-up, but you set it up right down the middle and I was ready for it. First of all, the *public* plan would likely be the monopoly, not all the HMOs, of which there are many (and therefore not a monopoly, as they all in fact *do* compete, even if not as well as we would like). But you telegraphed your pitch when you made the private-public side-by-side comparison. In all the cases which you mention, the public option came first and the private option arose because of competitive initiatives to augment and/or provide better service than the public option. Frankly, I'll take the cops over private security firms, and the military over Blackwater. But you have floated a little-league pitch with the FedEx/Post Office reference, as I think we all know who we would trust to get a package somewhere if it had to be there positively, absolutely overnight. Had the post office been the government's response to dissatisfaction with FedEx, that would be your point, but, ummm ... right!

6. Ok, not to be insensitive, I can tell that you have had some bad experiences with HMOs, and perhaps some very personal and painful ones, and I do understand and empathize. I have some serious axes to grind with the healthcare industry as well, and it does need to be fixed. But I don't want it fixed by trying to get the government to supervise, manage, mandate, and administer who gets what healthcare and set both the premiums and the payments for 300 million people.

To be continued, game called on account of rain.